Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: jam Date: Nov 20, 2002 2:59am
Forum: etree Subject: MP3->WAV->SHN

How does everyone feel about this?? Is this a form of losing a generation? Does it create "lossless" audio? I'm kinda new at this, but have been using the archive for some time now, and have a bunch of stuff as Mp3's that i'd like to keep, I just don't want to trade it if it will not be "lossless", as Mp3's are not widely traded...Anyone have an opinion??

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or Staffakb Date: Nov 20, 2002 4:03am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3->WAV->SHN

You won't lose any more information than was lost in doing the original encoding to mp3 by reencoding to shn. I would suggest keeping it apparent that the source is an mp3, lest someone think they are getting a higher quality recording. In the analog world, it would be like representing a tape as an original rather than one that's gone through a couple of dub cycles.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: brandonfy2 Date: Nov 20, 2002 3:09am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3->WAV->SHN

from what I know, trading mp3 sourced music is frowned upon because it is not a lossless format. It is also frowned upon to create your own shn's, most people want the shn's that were created by the taper.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Nov 21, 2002 12:37am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3->WAV->SHN

If files exist in MP3, they no doubt exist(ed) as pre-MP3 WAV somewhere. Play detective, track down a person who has original WAVs, prepare or get them to prepare SHN (or FLAC) from the WAVs.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Nov 21, 2002 12:37am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3->WAV->SHN

If files exist in MP3, they no doubt exist(ed) as pre-MP3 WAV somewhere. Play detective, track down a person who has original WAVs, prepare or get them to prepare SHN (or FLAC) from the WAVs.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffJonathan Aizen Date: Nov 20, 2002 5:31am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3->WAV->SHN

No point in doing this... The whole idea of having SHN files is not using MP3. In this case I'd just go MP3->WAV->MP3.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: BrokenBrick Date: Oct 5, 2004 2:26am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3->WAV->SHN

My question is, if you convert an mp3 show to SHN, will it sound better, even though some of the original sound is lost, or will it just take up more space? I am not speaking technically, I just want to know if there will be an audible improvement in sound.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Blenda Date: Oct 5, 2004 8:45am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3->WAV->SHN

"My question is, if you convert an mp3 show to SHN, will it sound better, even though some of the original sound is lost, or will it just take up more space?"

Short answer: It will not sound better.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffJonathan Aizen Date: Oct 5, 2004 8:49am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3->WAV->SHN

The SHN will sound exactly as the WAV does, but misleads people into thinking it is lossless, which in fact it was encoded from MP3.

Jon

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Jay Date: Nov 20, 2002 4:11am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3->WAV->SHN

This is definitely not something you want to do. Once an audio file is encoded into MP3 data has been deleted - and there's no way to get it back. Converting the file back to SHN will just create a bigger file.

Here's a visual demonstration of what happens to an audio file when it's converted to MP3:

(Same WAV file converted to SHN and also to 192kbps MP3)

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/billietelevision2/SHN.jpg

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/billietelevision2/MP3.jpg

You can see the MP3 encoded file has data deleted. That data cannot be restored. Hope this helps.

-Jay


This post was modified by Jay on 2002-11-20 12:11:10

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HTHshawn Date: Nov 23, 2002 10:19pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3->WAV->SHN

Jay,

It really depends on the encode because mp3's done in vbr can sound just as good as Shn's. I understand what you diagram is saying but really do you notice the difference to the human ear? I have had this argument with many people and I usually will never find any taper or trader that will admit a good encoded mp3's sounds the same as a shn. However, I have asked MANY sound engineers from mainstream bands and EVERYONE OF THEM have said they that the human ear CANNOT hear the difference of a good encoded mp3 and a shn. Of course I am talking about live recordings taped from say a MD or DAT. It¡¦s like digital TV; I thought I had to go buy one because they are so much ¡§clearer¡¨. I get the TV and I don¡¦t notice a damn bit of difference in the visual aspects. Of course the stats say digital TV is 100 times better then conventional TV but can humans really notice the difference? I know this will get 100 replies that will say ¡§I can hear the difference¡¨ and I respect that and cannot argue it. I just wanted to give my point of view on the issue. SHN should still be the tool of choice because of the verifications and it¡¦s also a good standard to have. It¡¦s just the size that I can¡¦t stand. ƒº Shawn

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffJonathan Aizen Date: Nov 23, 2002 11:01pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Re: MP3->WAV->SHN

Personally, for the most part, I cannot tell the difference, yet I still don't want MP3 encoded concerts for several reasons.

1. Using a very high quality sound system, the average human ear can tell the difference. On your computer's speakers or your middle-range stereo system the sound is degraded enough that you can't tell the difference.

2. With SHN files you *know* there has been no loss in quality. With MP3 files you have to check the bitrate and also have to listen to know if sound quality has been adversely affected enough to notice. Not worth the time when we have SHN and FLAC files at our disposal.

Jon

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HTHshawn Date: Nov 23, 2002 11:23pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Re: Re: MP3->WAV->SHN

Very good points! Some people really screw around with mp3's. For example some people get mp3's in 128 and then think if they re encode them to 192 they will sound better. This makes the sound fiels sound terrible. However, I will still disagree that an audience recording show listened in shn or a GOOD mp3 you wont hear the difference. Of course that is just my opinion and experience. Shawn

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jedihound Date: Nov 26, 2002 7:25am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3->WAV->SHN

The sound quality is not the important aspect here. It is the integrity of the data. In a DAT > WAV > SHN conversion, every bit (as in byte) of data is an exact duplicate and will be preserved - true to the source. Once it is converted to MP3 - It is not possible to recapture all of the DATA of the original recording. I've had some really crappy sounding shows in SHN, and some great sounding MP3 shows, but that is not the point of ETREE

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HTHshawn Date: Nov 26, 2002 8:11am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Re: MP3->WAV->SHN

Well let’s stick with the facts here. I am not questioning the purpose of etree. What etree is doing is amazing and I have the utmost respect for them. What I was saying is I don't care what any graphs say or stats say. I have heard great encoded mp3 that can be just as good as a shn in quality for audience recordings. This is my personal opinion and I am glad etree does it in shn’s. It keeps everything to standards which are needed. Shawn

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)